Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/springer-journals/transfer-factor-calculated-using-dermal-exposure-and-dislodgeable-LokfiU0vFK
- Publisher
- Springer Journals
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s) 2023
- ISSN
- 2468-0834
- eISSN
- 2468-0842
- DOI
- 10.1186/s13765-022-00765-z
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
This study aimed to determine the transfer factor ( TF) of methidathion for cucumber harvesters in greenhouses using the dermal exposure rates (DERs) and dislodgeable foliar residues (DFRs) measured simultaneously in my previous works. The DERs recalculated using the reference body surface area for the Korean adult males were 31.5–1281.1 μg/h, and the DFR values were 12.1–222.5 ng/cm over 7 d after application. A strong correlation between the DERs and DFRs was observed, with a regression coefficient of 0.9982. The TF for cucumber harvesters in greenhouses was determined to be 6020.4 cm /h, which was five times higher than that proposed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Additionally, based on TF value of methidathion, the reentry intervals (REIs) with or without personal protective equipment (PPE) were estimated for 82 pesticides registered on cucumber. The REIs with PPE, obtained from acceptable operator exposure levels and TF value, were less than 0 d, indicating the lowest risk possibility. How‑ ever, REIs without PPE were estimated between 0.04 and 4.4 d for seven pesticides, including chlorothalonil, emamec‑ tin benzoate, flubendiamide, fluquinconazole, iminoctadine tris(albesilate), propineb, and pyridaben. In conclusion, cucumber harvesters should wear PPE for health safety when they reenter the greenhouse to harvest cucumbers following application of pesticides. Keywords Cucumber, Dermal exposure rate, Dislodgeable foliar residue, Reentry interval, Transfer factor the time farmers spend in their fields, and the potential Introduction unsafe exposure levels in these situations. To deal with Occupational exposure to pesticides can occur mainly concerns about pesticide hazards, their exposure should in factory workers during manufacturing and in farmers be appropriately controlled to ensure the health of agri- during mixing/loading, spraying, and harvesting the agri- cultural workers. cultural commodities. Acute and chronic health threats Following pesticide application to agricultural crops, of pesticide exposure greatly concern farmers, which its exposure is primarily attributed to dermal deposi- arise from the amount and frequency of pesticide use, tion and inhalation. Dermal deposition/adsorption is the main route of exposure to farmers and occurs *Correspondence: indirectly through contact between the skin and the Hoon Choi leaf surface stained with the spraying solution, but not hchoi0314@wku.ac.kr through direct contact with the pesticide droplet after Department of Life and Environmental Sciences, Wonkwang University, 460, Iksan‑Daero, Iksan 54538, Republic of Korea application [1]. Dislodgeable foliar residues (DFRs) Institute of Life Science and Natural Resources, Wonkwang University, of pesticides can easily translocate to the body sur- 460, Iksan‑Daero, Iksan 54538, Republic of Korea face of workers during pesticide application, pruning, © The Author(s) 2023. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. Choi Applied Biological Chemistry (2023) 66:1 Page 2 of 9 thinning, and harvesting [2]. Therefore, a dissipation crop foliage or cucumber [17]. Besides, the deposi- study of DFRs was conducted to predict the dermal tion and dissipation characteristics of methidathion on exposure of farm workers to pesticide and determine cucumber foliage were also investigated in my previous the safe reentry interval (REI). Transfer factor (TF) can publication [18]. be considered a link between dermal exposure rates As mentioned above, exposure to reentering workers (DERs) and DFRs [3]. TF is the ratio of exposure to the could be estimated using the TF value calculated from the DFRs and calculated using DERs and the foliage sur- DERs and DFRs. To the best of my knowledge, no previ- face area contacted by the worker per hour [4, 5]. Con- ous reports on the DERs for harvesters and DFRs have sequently, the estimation of dermal exposure to other been published in the Republic of Korea, except for my pesticides is possible using specific TF values estab - previous papers. Hence, this study aimed to derive the TF lished for specific crops, activities, and field conditions value using reentry DERs and DFRs measured concur- [6]. rently in the same cucumber greenhouse, reported in my The number of greenhouse farms and the cultiva - previous works [17, 18]. In addition, the REIs of 82 pesti- tion area have increased globally, particularly in Korea, cides registered on cucumber were determined to set pri- because of the high production capacities per unit area orities for pesticide exposure management. and year-round cultivation. In 2020, greenhouse acre- age and production reached 60,866 hectares and 2.3 Materials and methods million tons, respectively, in the Republic of Korea [7]. Recalculation of dermal exposure to pesticides Moreover, farm workers frequently reenter the facil- in the cucumber field ity for the continuous harvesting of agricultural com- The DERs to harvesters for 7 d post pesticide applica - modities such as cucumber, which has grown 87% of tion, reported in my previous study [17], was reassessed the total production in the greenhouse. As a result, the based on numerous assumptions concerning harvest- probability of farmworker exposure to pesticides also ing time per day, body surface area, and reference value. increased in specific work tasks, which could be attrib - The dermal exposure rate (DER, μg/h) was calculated by uted to the enclosed greenhouse farm system, frequent extrapolating the exposure amount (μg/cm ; measured by pesticide application and reentry. The resultant health dosimeters) to the body surface area ( cm ) and dividing effects among greenhouse farm workers have continued it by the work time (h). The calculation is based on the to be reported, including hormonal, neurological, and assumption that pesticide exposure through direct foliar respiratory disorders [8–11]. contact is proportional to work duration. The body sur - In Korea, exposure to mixers and sprayers during face area for Korean adult male suggested by Kim et al. pesticide application has been a great deal of focus in [19] was used to calculate the DER (Table 1). the past [1, 12–14]. The exposure characteristics for applicators were reported in open fields, including Determination of TF green pepper fields, paddy fields, mandarin, and apple TF (cm /h) was determined using the following formula: orchards [1, 12, 13], and were also compared by diverse 2 2 formulations and different application methods [1 , 13]. TF cm /h = DER(μg/h) × 1000/DFR ng/cm Moreover, the exposure pattern for agricultural workers was investigated during the application of the pesticide DFRs of methidation measured in my previous study suspension to the cucumber in a greenhouse environ- [18] were used for calculation of TF. A linear regression ment [1, 14]. However, there is also the possibility of curve was obtained by plotting DERs versus DFRs at an exposure in a field sprayed previously with pesticides, where agricultural workers reenter for picking, har- vesting, pruning/thinning, maintenance, etc. In Korea’s Table 1 Body surface area for the Korean adult male farming situation, agricultural workers generally prefer Body parts Surface area Body parts Surface to wear long-sleeved shirts and long trousers instead of (cm ) area personal protective equipment (PPE) during the har- (cm ) vest, because of the inconvenience of the work, thereby Head 484 Upper arm 1537 causing a higher possibility of risk to pesticides [15, 16]. Face 484 Forearm 1127 My research group previously reported the exposure Front of Neck 242 Thigh 2769 and risk to methidation for workers during harvesting Back of Neck 182 Lower leg 2197 cucumber for 7 days in the greenhouse, which showed Chest/Abdomen 3324 Feet 1266 that workers exposed mainly through hands, thighs, Back 3336 Hand 935 and arms by the direct contact with the pesticides on Choi Applied Biological Chemistry (2023) 66:1 Page 3 of 9 interval of 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 d post application. The linear Table 2 Dislodgeable foliar residues (DFRs) and dermal exposure rates (DERs) for harvesters to methidathion in my relationship between the DERs and DFRs was evaluated previous works [17, 18] using the F-test, linear regression equation, and regres- 2 a sion coefficient (R ). Statistical analysis was conducted After application DFRs (ng/cm ) DERs (μg/h) Re-cal-DERs (μg/h) using SPSS 18.0 (SPSS Inc., Arming, NY, USA). The slope of the linear regression equation was determined as TF. Day 1 222.5 ± 46.5 1343.5 ± 1209.6 1281.1 ± 1197.1 Day 2 146.3 ± 56.0 828.6 ± 763.5 792.5 ± 751.4 Dermal exposure assessment Day 3 82.6 ± 27.3 427.7 ± 337.6 413.3 ± 333.2 Day 5 29.0 ± 6.3 80.2 ± 65.4 80.2 ± 65.4 Day 7 12.1 ± 2.2 34.8 ± 23.4 31.5 ± 22.7 The initial DFR (DFR , ng/cm ) for each pesticide com- Dermal exposure rates (DERs) recalculated using the reference body surface pound was calculated using the following formula: area for Korean adult males [19] DFR ng/cm = DV × A.I. × 10/DF, was assumed to be –0.4915 [18]. The SWT is the maxi - where DV is the foliage deposit volume of the spraying mum harvesting time per day for which the exposure to solution (nL/cm ), A.I. is the active ingredient (%), and pesticides is below the AOEL and was calculated using DF is the dilution factor of pesticide products. Assum- the following formula: ing that foliage DV is the same regardless of the pesticide type and formulation, the foliage DV of methidathion SWT h/day = (AOEL × BW)/ADE × H/D. spraying solution was used to determine the DFR for each pesticide compound. Accordingly, the DV value was 2 2 Results and discussion set as 888.8 nL/cm using DFR of 355.5 ng/cm , A.I. of Reassessment of dermal exposure to pesticides for workers 40%, and DF of 1000 [18]. The initial DER (DER , μg/h) in the cucumber field for each pesticide was calculated by multiplying the DERs to methidathion in the cucumber greenhouse were DFR with the TF value. The potential dermal exposure determined in my previous experiment [17] using the (PDE, μg/day) per day was expressed as the correspond- surface area of the appropriate body region suggested ing DER multiplied by the harvesting time per day (H/D) by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [21] of 8 h, deduced using an H/D of 8.3 h/day in the melon and Vercruysse et al. [22]. The reported DER values were greenhouse [8, 18]. The actual dermal exposure (ADE, 34.8–1343.5 μg/h over 7 d after application of methi- μg/day) to harvesters in the cucumber greenhouse was dathion during cucumber harvest in the greenhouse calculated by extrapolating PDE to the penetration rate with dermal dosimetry (Table 2). In addition, inhalation (PEN) through personal protective equipment (PPE) and exposure was not observed in any of the workers. Cur- skin absorption (ABS). The default values of PEN and rently, the exposure of agricultural workers to pesticides ABS were assumed to be 10%, respectively [18]. in Korea is determined using the reference body surface area values by each body parts for a Korean adult male Determination of reentry intervals and safe work time suggested by Kim et al. [19]. Therefore, DERs to methi - dathion were recalculated using the reference body sur- face area value (Table 2). The recalculated DERs were The REIs and safe work times (SWTs) were calculated for 31.5–1281.1 μg/h over 7 d after application during pesticides registered on cucumber. The REI for harvest - cucumber harvesting, approximately 95% similar to the ers in the cucumber greenhouse was derived using the DERs in previous work [17]. following formula: −1 TF for workers harvesting in the cucumber greenhouse REI days = [ln(AOEL × BW)−ln(ADE)] × k , Methidathion DFRs on cucumber leaves measured where AOEL is the acceptable operator exposure level in my previous study [18] were in the range of 12.1– (μg/kg b.w./day), BW is the body weight of adult Korean 222.5 ng/cm for 7 d after application (Table 2). The males (kg b.w.), ADE is the initial ADE, and k is the dis- correlation between the DERs and DFRs measured sipation constant for DFR. AOELs established and concurrently in the same cucumber field was investi - reported by the Rural Development Administration gated. The linear regression analysis between the DERs (RDA) were used for this study [20], the body weight and DFRs of methidathion showed that the regres- taken was 70 kg [1, 14, 18], and the dissipation constant sion model was significant at the F-value (p < 0.05), Choi Applied Biological Chemistry (2023) 66:1 Page 4 of 9 Fig. 1 Correlation between dislodgeable foliar residues (DFRs) and dermal exposure rates (DERs) to methidathion for harvesters in the cucumber greenhouse demonstrating a high linear relationship between developing data for assessing exposure and establishing the two variables for 7 d after application. The R was TFs for all crops, activities, and field conditions. There - 0.9982, indicating that 99.8% of the variation in DERs fore, further studies are needed to establish TFs spe- explained by the DFRs. Therefore, DERs could be esti - cialized for the Korean situation. mated from the DFRs. The TF of methidathion for har - vesters was determined to be 6020.4 cm /h (95% CI; Exposure assessment and REIs for harvesters 5544.7–6496.2), as shown in Fig. 1. in the cucumber greenhouse In the 1980s, a Zweig factor of 5000 c m /h (based on The TF is not dependent on the pesticide applied [2, 5], a one-sided surface area) was used as the TF to esti- and is generally used to quickly assess exposure to any mate worker exposure [23]. However, this factor tends pesticide-active ingredient using estimates of exposure to overestimate exposure to low-crop workers and time and the concentration of residue that workers will underestimate exposure to high-crop workers [24]. contact [5]. Crop type is a major factor in determining Meanwhile, the US EPA has established TFs based on DFR values without excluding the effect of formulation detailed conditions, including crop height and work type [2]. Exposure of workers to pesticides registered for activity [6]; the proposed TFs for harvesting and irri- cucumber was estimated using the TF value of 6020.4 2 2 gation activities by hands were 550 and 1900 c m /h, cm /h determined in this study, followed by the assess- respectively, in cucumber fields with low crop height ment of health risks. As of 2022, 163 pesticides in 1374 and full foliage density. Greenhouse floral production products have been registered for application to cucum- presents a unique cultural situation, with planting rows ber fields in Korea. Of these, only 82 pesticide-active between narrow walkways to maximize the growing ingredients used for foliage sprays have been assessed for area. This results in foliar contact and a higher possi - exposure and health risks, for which RDA established the bility of workers’ exposure to pesticide residues while AOEL values. Using the specific dissipation constant of using these walkways for harvesting or other tasks [25]. DFR may be inappropriate for calculating REIs of other Therefore, the US EPA suggested a TF of 1200 cm /h pesticides, because the dissipation of DFRs depends on for harvesting vegetables with a high crop height and the physico-chemical properties and degradation charac- full foliage density in greenhouses. However, the TF teristics of each pesticide. Therefore, the REI calculations value of 6020.4 cm /h determined in this study was five in this study were restrictively performed to prioritize times higher than that proposed by the US EPA. These pesticides for pesticide exposure management. Table 3 results demonstrate that Korean harvesters could be at shows the estimated ADEs and REIs for cucumber har- a higher risk of pesticide exposure in a greenhouse than vesters in Korea. US workers. Over the past few decades, the US EPA has REIs for harvesters using the PPE were –17.6 to –0.3 been actively engaged in refining its methodologies and d, corresponding to 0.02–84.9% of the AOEL value. Choi Applied Biological Chemistry (2023) 66:1 Page 5 of 9 Table 3 Estimated dermal exposure and reentry interval for harvesters to pesticides registered for the cucumber greenhouses a b c d e g h Pesticides A.I. Dilution AOEL DFR estimatePDE estimate ADE (mg/day) REI (days) SWT (h/day) (%) (mg/kg b.w./day) (ng/cm ) (mg/day) PPE + PPE− PPE + PPE− PPE + PPE− Abamectin 1.8 3000 0.0025 5.3 0.3 0.003 0.03 − 8.6 − 3.9 545.1 54.5 Acetamiprid 8 2000 0.07 35.6 1.7 0.02 0.2 − 11.5 − 6.8 2289.5 228.9 Acrinathrin 5.7 2000 0.0071 25.3 1.2 0.01 0.1 − 7.5 − 2.9 325.9 32.6 Afidopyropen 2.5 2000 0.087 11.1 0.5 0.01 0.1 − 14.3 − 9.6 9105.6 910.6 Amisulbrom 13.5 2000 0.18 60.0 2.9 0.03 0.3 − 12.4 − 7.7 3488.7 348.9 Azoxystrobin 21.7 1000 0.21 192.9 9.3 0.1 0.9 − 10.3 − 5.6 1266.1 126.6 Benthiavalicarbisopropyl 15 2000 0.1 66.7 3.2 0.03 0.3 − 11.0 − 6.3 1744.4 174.4 Bifenthrin 2 1000 0.0075 17.8 0.9 0.01 0.1 − 8.4 − 3.7 490.6 49.1 Bistrifluron 10 2000 0.095 44.4 2.1 0.02 0.2 − 11.7 − 7.0 2485.7 248.6 Bitertanol 25 2500 0.01 88.9 4.3 0.04 0.4 − 5.7 − 1.0 130.8 13.1 Boscalid 49.3 1500 0.097 292.1 14.1 0.1 1.4 − 7.9 − 3.2 386.1 38.6 Broflanilide 5 2000 0.0031 22.2 1.1 0.01 0.1 − 6.1 − 1.4 162.2 16.2 Chlorantraniliprole 5 2000 0.36 22.2 1.1 0.01 0.1 − 15.8 − 11.1 18,839.1 1883.9 Chlorfenapyr 10 2000 0.0042 44.4 2.1 0.02 0.2 − 5.3 − 0.6 109.9 11.0 Chlorothalonil 75 600 0.009 1111.0 53.5 0.5 5.4 − 0.3 4.4 9.4 0.9 Clothianidin 8 1000 0.1 71.1 3.4 0.03 0.3 − 10.8 − 6.1 1635.3 163.5 Copper hydroxide 77 1000 0.072 684.4 33.0 0.3 3.3 − 5.5 − 0.9 122.3 12.2 Copper sulfate 15 500 0.072 266.6 12.8 0.1 1.3 − 7.5 − 2.8 314.0 31.4 Cyazofamid 10 2000 0.3 44.4 2.1 0.02 0.2 − 14.0 − 9.3 7849.6 785.0 Cyclaniliprole 4.5 2000 0.027 20.0 1.0 0.01 0.1 − 10.7 − 6.1 1569.9 157.0 Cyflumetofen 10 1000 0.11 88.9 4.3 0.04 0.4 − 10.6 − 5.9 1439.1 143.9 Cypermethrin, zeta 3 1000 0.019 26.7 1.3 0.01 0.1 − 9.4 − 4.8 828.6 82.9 Deltamethrin 1 1000 0.0075 8.9 0.4 0.004 0.04 − 9.8 − 5.1 981.2 98.1 Difenoconazole 10 2000 0.16 44.4 2.1 0.02 0.2 − 12.7 − 8.1 4186.5 418.6 Dimethomorph 25 1000 0.15 222.2 10.7 0.1 1.1 − 9.3 − 4.6 785.0 78.5 Dinotefuran 20 1000 0.22 177.8 8.6 0.1 0.9 − 10.6 − 5.9 1439.1 143.9 Emamectin benzoate 5 4000 0.00028 11.1 0.5 0.01 0.1 − 2.6 2.0 29.3 2.9 Ethaboxam 25 1000 0.16 222.2 10.7 0.1 1.1 − 9.5 − 4.8 837.3 83.7 Etofenprox 20 1000 0.06 177.8 8.6 0.1 0.9 − 7.9 − 3.2 392.5 39.2 Fenbuconazole 12 2000 0.017 53.3 2.6 0.03 0.3 − 7.8 − 3.1 370.7 37.1 Fenpyrazamine 30 1000 0.25 266.6 12.8 0.1 1.3 − 10.0 − 5.3 1090.2 109.0 Flometoquin 10 2000 0.01 44.4 2.1 0.02 0.2 − 7.1 − 2.4 261.7 26.2 Flonicamid 50 10,000 0.025 44.4 2.1 0.02 0.2 − 9.0 − 4.3 654.1 65.4 Flubendiamide 20 2000 0.006 88.9 4.3 0.04 0.4 − 4.6 0.04 78.5 7.8 Choi Applied Biological Chemistry (2023) 66:1 Page 6 of 9 Table 3 (continued) a b c d e g h Pesticides A.I. Dilution AOEL DFR estimatePDE estimate ADE (mg/day) REI (days) SWT (h/day) (%) (mg/kg b.w./day) (ng/cm ) (mg/day) PPE + PPE− PPE + PPE− PPE + PPE− Fludioxonil 20 2000 0.59 88.9 4.3 0.04 0.4 − 14.0 − 9.3 7718.8 771.9 Fluopyram 40 4000 0.054 88.9 4.3 0.04 0.4 − 9.1 − 4.4 706.5 70.6 Fluquinconazole 25 2000 0.0012 111.1 5.4 0.05 0.5 − 0.9 3.8 12.6 1.3 Flutianil 2 2000 0.35 8.9 0.4 0.004 0.04 − 17.6 − 12.9 45,789.5 4578.9 Fluxametamide 9 2000 0.022 40.0 1.9 0.02 0.2 − 8.9 − 4.2 639.6 64.0 Fluxapyroxad 15.3 4000 0.041 34.0 1.6 0.02 0.2 − 10.5 − 5.8 1402.3 140.2 Hexaconazole 5 5000 0.0082 8.9 0.4 0.004 0.04 − 10.0 − 5.3 1072.8 107.3 Imidacloprid 10 2000 0.08 44.4 2.1 0.02 0.2 − 11.3 − 6.6 2093.2 209.3 Iminoctadine tris(albesilate) 30 1000 0.0024 266.6 12.8 0.1 1.3 − 0.5 4.1 10.5 1.0 Indoxacarb 15.84 3000 0.0036 46.9 2.3 0.02 0.2 − 4.9 − 0.2 89.2 8.9 Iprodione 50 1000 0.19 444.4 21.4 0.2 2.1 − 8.4 − 3.7 497.1 49.7 Isofetamid 36 1500 0.053 213.3 10.3 0.1 1.0 − 7.3 − 2.6 288.9 28.9 Isopyrazam 12.57 2000 0.036 55.9 2.7 0.03 0.3 − 9.2 − 4.6 749.4 74.9 Kresoximmethyl 50 3000 0.92 148.1 7.1 0.07 0.7 − 13.8 − 9.2 7221.7 722.2 Lepimectin 2 2000 0.013 8.9 0.4 0.004 0.04 − 10.9 − 6.2 1700.8 170.1 Lufenuron 5 2000 0.01 22.2 1.1 0.01 0.1 − 8.5 − 3.8 523.3 52.3 Mefentrifluconazole 10 2000 0.016 44.4 2.1 0.02 0.2 − 8.1 − 3.4 418.6 41.9 Metaflumizone 20 2000 0.01 88.9 4.3 0.04 0.4 − 5.7 − 1.0 130.8 13.1 Methoxyfenozide 4 1000 0.11 35.6 1.7 0.02 0.2 − 12.4 − 7.7 3597.7 359.8 Metrafenone 25.2 2000 0.43 112.0 5.4 0.05 0.5 − 12.9 − 8.2 4464.7 446.5 Milbemectin 2 2000 0.0086 8.9 0.4 0.004 0.04 − 10.1 − 5.4 1125.1 112.5 Myclobutanil 6 1000 0.031 53.3 2.6 0.03 0.3 − 9.0 − 4.3 675.9 67.6 Novaluron 10 2000 0.012 44.4 2.1 0.02 0.2 − 7.5 − 2.8 314.0 31.4 Penthiopyrad 20 4000 0.11 44.4 2.1 0.02 0.2 − 12.0 − 7.3 2878.2 287.8 Phenthoate 47.5 1000 0.1 422.2 20.3 0.2 2.0 − 7.2 − 2.5 275.4 27.5 Picarbutrazox 10 2000 0.11 44.4 2.1 0.02 0.2 − 12.0 − 7.3 2878.2 287.8 Prochloraz 50 2000 0.018 222.2 10.7 0.1 1.1 − 5.0 − 0.3 94.2 9.4 Procymidone 50 1000 0.035 444.4 21.4 0.2 2.1 − 5.0 − 0.3 91.6 9.2 Propamocarb HCl 66.5 1000 0.29 591.1 28.5 0.3 2.8 − 8.7 − 4.0 570.5 57.1 Propineb 70 400 0.046 1555.4 74.9 0.7 7.5 − 3.0 1.7 34.4 3.4 Pydiflumetofen 18.35 4000 0.18 40.8 2.0 0.02 0.2 − 13.2 − 8.5 5133.3 513.3 Pyflubumide 10 2000 0.0062 44.4 2.1 0.02 0.2 − 6.1 − 1.4 162.2 16.2 Pyraclostrobin 22.9 4000 0.015 50.9 2.5 0.02 0.2 − 7.6 − 3.0 342.8 34.3 Choi Applied Biological Chemistry (2023) 66:1 Page 7 of 9 Table 3 (continued) a b c d e g h Pesticides A.I. Dilution AOEL DFR estimatePDE estimate ADE (mg/day) REI (days) SWT (h/day) (%) (mg/kg b.w./day) (ng/cm ) (mg/day) PPE + PPE− PPE + PPE− PPE + PPE− Pyraziflumid 15 2000 0.071 66.7 3.2 0.03 0.3 − 10.3 − 5.6 1238.5 123.8 Pyridaben 20 1000 0.005 177.8 8.6 0.1 0.9 − 2.9 1.8 32.7 3.3 Pyridalyl 10 1000 0.036 88.9 4.3 0.04 0.4 − 8.3 − 3.6 471.0 47.1 Pyrifluquinazon 10 2000 0.013 44.4 2.1 0.02 0.2 − 7.6 − 2.9 340.2 34.0 Pyriproxyfen 10 2000 0.04 44.4 2.1 0.02 0.2 − 9.9 − 5.2 1046.6 104.7 Spinetoram 5 2000 0.0065 22.2 1.1 0.01 0.1 − 7.6 − 2.9 340.2 34.0 Spinosad 10 2000 0.012 44.4 2.1 0.02 0.2 − 7.5 − 2.8 314.0 31.4 Tebufenozide 8 1000 0.008 71.1 3.4 0.03 0.3 − 5.7 − 1.0 130.8 13.1 Teflubenzuron 5 1000 0.016 44.4 2.1 0.02 0.2 − 8.1 − 3.4 418.6 41.9 Tetraconazole 12.5 1000 0.03 111.1 5.4 0.05 0.5 − 7.5 − 2.8 314.0 31.4 Tetraniliprole 18.18 5000 0.37 32.3 1.6 0.02 0.2 − 15.1 − 10.4 13,313.0 1331.3 Thiamethoxam 10 2000 0.082 44.4 2.1 0.02 0.2 − 11.4 − 6.7 2145.6 214.6 Trifloxystrobin 50 4000 0.059 111.1 5.4 0.05 0.5 − 8.8 − 4.2 617.5 61.8 Triflumizole 30 3000 0.041 88.9 4.3 0.04 0.4 − 8.6 − 3.9 536.4 53.6 Valifenalate 12 1000 0.68 106.7 5.1 0.1 0.5 − 13.9 − 9.2 7413.5 741.4 Active ingredient Acceptable operator exposure level Initial dislodgeable foliar residue (DFR ), estimated using A.I., dilution, and deposit volume d 2 Potential dermal exposure (PDE), estimated using DFR , transfer factor (TF, 6020.4 cm /h), and harvesting time per day (H/D, 8 h/day) Actual dermal exposure (ADE) = PDE × 10% penetration rate through PPE × 10% skin absorption Personal protective equipment or clothing Reentry interval Safe work time Choi Applied Biological Chemistry (2023) 66:1 Page 8 of 9 Availability of data and materials Agricultural workers generally harvest cucumbers daily All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published in a greenhouse because it is a continuously harvested article. crop with a rapid growth rate. Therefore, these results demonstrate the lowest possibility of risk for workers Declarations wearing PPE, even when they reenter the greenhouse Competing interests on the day of application. However, the use of PPE is The authors declare that they have no competing interests. considerably more limited for harvesters due to work- related inconvenience than for applicators. In Korea, Received: 3 October 2022 Accepted: 26 December 2022 agricultural workers generally harvest crops wearing long-sleeved shirts and long trousers [15, 16]. Conse- quently, for the harvesters not wearing PPE, the REIs were determined between 0.04 to 4.4 d for seven pes- References ticides including chlorothalonil, emamectin benzo- 1. Choi H, Moon JK, Kim JH (2013) Assessment of the exposure of workers to ate, flubendiamide, fluquinconazole, iminoctadine the insecticide imidacloprid during application on various field crops by a hand‑held power sprayer. J Agric Food Chem 61:10642–10648 tris(albesilate), propineb, and pyridaben; SWT for six 2. Kasiotis KM, Tsakirakis AN, Glass CR, Charistou AN, Anastassiadou P, pesticides (except for flubendiamide) was less than 4 h/ Gerritsen‑Ebben R et al (2017) Assessment of field re ‑ entry exposure day. The potential health risks of these pesticides were to pesticides: a dislodgeable foliar residue study. Sci Total Environ 596–597:178–186 due to the lower AOEL values for emamectin benzo- 3. Whitmyre GK, Ross JH, Ginevan ME, Eberhart D (2005) Development ate, flubendiamide, fluquinconazole, iminoctadine of risk‑based restricted entry intervals. In: Franklin CA, Worgan JP (eds) tris(albesilate), and pyridaben and the higher DFR for 0 Occupational and residential exposure assessment for pesticides. Wiley, West Sussex, UK, pp 45–69 chlorothalonil and propineb. Therefore, a harvester 4. Korpalski S, Bruce E, Holden L, Klonne D (2005) Dislodgeable foliar resi‑ must wear PPE for health safety when reentering a facil- dues are lognormally distributed for agricultural re‑ entry studies. J Expo ity after spraying pesticides. Meanwhile, as mentioned Anal Environ Epidemiol 15:160–163 5. Jiang W, Hernandez B, Richmond D, Yanga N (2017) Harvesters in straw‑ above, REIs estimated in this study had a few limita- berry fields: a literature review of pesticide exposure, an observation tions, such as the application of dissipation constant of of their work activities, and a model for exposure prediction. J Expo Sci methidathion. DFRs for pesticides with potential health Environ Epidemiol 27:391–397 6. US Environmental protection agency (2012) Science advisory council for risks should be further investigated to ensure the health exposure (ExpoSAC) policy 3. Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington safety of greenhouse workers more definitively. DC 7. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (2021) Statistical yearbook of agriculture, food and rural affairs. Republic of Korea, Sejong Abbreviations 8. Park JS, Oh GJ (2008) Differences in farmer’s syndrome between DFR Dislodgeable foliar residue greenhouse‑melon farmers and rice farmers. J Agric Med Community TF Transfer factor Health 33:27–36 DER Dermal exposure rate 9. Lee WJ (2011) Pesticide exposure and health. J Environ Health Sci DV D eposit volume of spraying solution 37:81–93 A.I. Active ingredient 10. Amoatey P, Al‑Mayahi A, Omidvarborna H, Baawain MS, Sulaiman H DF Dilution factor (2020) Occupational exposure to pesticides and associated health effects PDE P otential dermal exposure among greenhouse farm workers. Environ Sci Pollut Res 27:22251–22270 H/D Harvesting time per day 11. Xie Y, Li J, Guo X, Zhao J, Yang B, Xiao W et al (2020) Health status among ADE Actual dermal exposure greenhouse workers exposed to different levels of pesticides: a genetic PEN Penetration rate matching analysis. Sci Rep 10:8714 PPE Personal protective equipment 12. Choi H, Moon JK, Liu KH, Park HW, Ihm YB, Park BS et al (2006) Risk assess‑ ABS Skin absorption ment of human exposure to cypermethrin during treatment of mandarin REI Reentry interval fields. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 50:437–442 AOEL A cceptable operator exposure level 13. Kim EH, Moon JK, Choi H, Hong SM, Lee DH, Lee HM et al (2012) Exposure BW Body weight and risk assessment of insecticide methomyl for applicator during treat‑ RDA Rural development administration ment on apple orchard. J Korean Soc Appl Biol Chem 55:95–100 SWT Saf e work time 14. Choi H, Kim JH (2018) Risk and exposure assessment for agricultural EPA Environmental protection agency workers during treatment of cucumber with the fungicide fenarimol in greenhouse. Appl Biol Chem 61(1):1–6 Acknowledgements 15. Kim DH, Baek YJ, Lee JY (2016) Contemporary research to standardize the Not applicable. development and test methods for performance of pesticide protective clothing. Korean J Human Ecol 25:185–205 Author contributions 16. Kim DH, Lee JY (2020) Protective and comfort performance of pesticide HC conceived and designed the project, collected the data, performed protective clothing: physicochemical properties of materials and clothing the analysis and interpretation, and wrote the paper. The author read and Ensemble. Korean J Community Living Sci 31:559–573 approved the final manuscript. 17. Byoun JY, Choi H, Moon JK, Park HW, Liu KH, Ihm YB et al (2005) Risk assessment of human exposure to methidathion during harvest of Funding cucumber in green house. J Toxicol Pub Health 21:297–301 This research was supported by Wonkwang University in 2022. Choi Applied Biological Chemistry (2023) 66:1 Page 9 of 9 18. Choi H, Byoun JY, Kim JH (2013) Determination of reentry interval for cucumber harvesters in greenhouse after application of insecticide methidathion. J Korean Soc Appl Biol Chem 56:465–467 19. Kim EH, Lee HR, Choi H, Moon JK, Hong SS, Jeong MH et al (2011) Meth‑ odology for quantitative monitoring of agricultural worker exposure to pesticides. Korean J Pest Sci 15:507–528 20. Rural Development Administration (2022) Standard for Pesticide Registra‑ tion, Administrative Rule of Pesticide Management Act (Notification 2022‑04, Revised 2022.03.08, Date of Enforcement 2022.03.08). Suwon, Republic of Korea. 21. US Environmental Protection Agency (1996) Occupational and residential exposure test guidelines, OPPTS 875. 1000, EPA 712‑ C‑96–261. Washing‑ ton DC. 22. Vercruysse F, Driegde S, Steurbaut W, Dejonckheere W (1999) Exposure assessment of professional pesticide users during treatment of potato fields. Pest Sci 55:467–473 23. Zweig G, Gao RU, Witt JM, Profendrof W, Bogen K (1984) Dermal exposure to carbaryl by strawberry harvesters. J Agri Food Chem 32:1232–1236 24. Lanning CL, Wehner TA, Norton JA, Dunbar DM, Grosso LS (1998) Correla‑ tion of actual strawberry harvester exposure with that predicted from abamectin dislodgeable foliar residues. J Agric Food Chem 46:2340–2345 25. Thompson B, Coronado G, Puschel K, Allen E (2001) Identifying constitu‑ ents to participate in a project to control pesticide exposure in children of farmworkers. Environ Health Perspect 109:443–448 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in pub‑ lished maps and institutional affiliations.
Journal
Applied Biological Chemistry – Springer Journals
Published: Jan 6, 2023
Keywords: Cucumber; Dermal exposure rate; Dislodgeable foliar residue; Reentry interval; Transfer factor